Morning:
6°c
Pre-nup victory for heiress changes rules of marriage
Martin Bentham and Terry Kirby2 Jul 2009
The strength of pre-nuptial agreements was dramatically increased today after a Court of Appeal ruling which could affect hundreds of future divorce cases.
Three of the country's most senior judges backed claims by a German heiress that a contract signed before her marriage did protect her £100 million fortune.
Katrin Radmacher's husband, Frenchman Nicolas Granatino, will lose most of the £5.85 million settlement awarded at an earlier court hearing.
Legal experts said the decision would ensure that pre-nup agreements would be increasingly accepted by the courts. Emma Hatley, a divorce specialist from the London legal firm Stewarts Law, said: “In light of this decision, it would be foolhardy for anyone entering a pre-nup to assume that they will not be held to the terms.”
Ms Radmacher, 39, married Mr Granatino, 37, in 1998 after they had signed a pre-nup in which he agreed not to make any financial demands on her if they divorced. Last year the High Court awarded him £5.8 million.
The figure was today cut to about £1 million after the appeal judges ruled that Mr Granatino should receive money to support the couple's two girls, but nothing for himself.
Ms Radmacher said: “The agreement was at my father's insistence as he wanted to protect my inheritance.
“Like all wealthy parents, he feared gold-diggers. As an heir himself, Nicolas perfectly understood this. The agreement gave me reassurance that Nicolas was marrying me because he loved me as I loved him.”
She added: “I am delighted that the court accepts that the agreement Nicolas and I entered into as intelligent adults before our marriage should be honoured. This case has been about what I regard as a broken promise.
“I will never regard my marriage as a mistake.”
The couple seemed a natural match when they met at Tramp nightclub in 1997. Both from very wealthy European families and enjoying their lives as young socialites about town.
Ms Radmacher, then 28 and running a Knightsbridge boutique with her sister, was on paper the wealthier — having been given six per cent of her father's paper-making empire, she was a multi-milllionairess.
So it was only natural that before they married in London in 1998, they signed a pre-nuptial agreement under which her prospective husband agreed not to make any claim on her inheritance if the marriage brokedown.
As Mr Granatino, then 26, was a merchant banker, earning an estimated £300,000 a year, and from a wealthy family of French industrialists, she had little reason to suspect he would ever want to make such a claim anyway. But in 2003, Mr Granatino left his job to study for a doctorate in biotechnology at Oxford, where, according to his supervising professor, he is “an outstanding student”.
However his lifestyle choice led to their marriage breaking down and they separated in 2006. Miss Radmacher returned to Germany with their two young daughters.
The High Court divorce hearing last year heard that although Mr Granatino's future income as an academic researcher would be a modest one of about £30,000 a year, he continued to live a playboy lifestyle and had run up debts of almost £800,000. He continued to live in the former matrimonial home in Knightsbridge, at a rent of £87,000 a year.
English law does not take into account any future inheritance. Mrs Justice Baron was unable to speculate on what he might be worth when his father dies and, with the pre-nuptial agreement not binding in the English courts, ruled in Mr Granatino's favour.
She dismissed Ms Radmacher's assertion that her husband had deliberately delayed his PhD to maximise his divorce settlement, but said Ms Radmacher was “far nicer, being more engaging and open” than her “superficially very charming” husband.
Reader views (13)
One rule for women anther for men. The UK justice system is guilty of serial discrimination
- Edward, Geneva, Switzerland, 02/07/2009 21:50
Report abuse
Amazing that none of the commenters appear to have read the judgment!!!
- Bj, London, 02/07/2009 18:09
Report abuse
Hope it works the same for men,but not likely in this double standards country.
- Dave, london, 02/07/2009 17:59
Report abuse
Kinda puts the "half of everything" into perspective, doesn't it. There should be no automatic entitlement without reason, for either side in a divorce. Lets face it, few people divorce because they are getting on well with one another.
- Rogan, Irving, 02/07/2009 17:27
Report abuse
Reading a few of the comments here just makes me think how sad some people are. Not even understand what getting married is about?
Judges applied the oldest rule in the book, money looks after money. You either go in as equals or forget it.
- Gary, Brentwood, 02/07/2009 16:50
Report abuse
Compulsory pre-nuptial agreements should be part of the marriage process by law.
- Rodders, Feltham SWTland, 02/07/2009 16:19
Report abuse
This is an appalling piece of discrimmination by the appeal Court. The fact is that pre-nups are NOT valid in the UK. Suddenly a woman is caught out having to pay 5% of her wealth to a husband [and there are children involved] and noe pre-nups are valid? Utter baloney. I note that Mostyn is involved again? UK divorce law is utterly corrupt, designed to fleece men and enrich the lawyers. Disgusting, this should go to the Lords because this ruling is wrong in law. These unelected cretins at the Court of Appeal are out of touch and out of control!
- James Macleod Ritchie, Oyster Bay Cove,NY,USA, 02/07/2009 16:12
Report abuse
"The figure was today cut from £5.85 million to about £1 million after the appeal judges ruled that Mr Granatino should receive money to support the couple's two girls, but nothing for himself."
Those words may come to haunt a lot of divorcing women who will have this woman to thank for their situation.
- Kate, London, 02/07/2009 16:11
Report abuse
It's a concern when the courts uphold pre-nups when the women has the money, but when the man is the heir there is a usually different view on this. The courts must ensure this is fair all around.
- Paddy Mac, Kilburn, London, 02/07/2009 15:18
Report abuse
A pre-nuptual agreement is, or should be, regarded as a contract in law. If M Granatino agreed to make no financial demands if the marriage failed then surely Ms Radmacher should have grounds for suing him for breach of contract - just a thought.....
- Anil Chatterjee, Manchester, 02/07/2009 14:41
Report abuse
All sounds very fair but I will say this much;
If it had been the other way round the wife would have probably received half the estate regardless of any "agreement"
- Phil, Surrey, 02/07/2009 14:36
Report abuse
I wonder how many husbands have tried and failed trying to enforce a pre nup prior to this case???
- Jeremy E, Home Counties, 02/07/2009 13:34
Report abuse
I'm pleased that courts have upheld the pre-nuptial agreement as it would have been a sad day if they disregarded previous contracts.
- Gavin, London, 02/07/2009 13:03
Report abuse
